Wednesday's letters: Obama’s policies

Published: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 5:24 p.m.

To the editor: Economic growth is anemic and totally inadequate to carry the debt load the administration has imposed. It does not provide the jobs that people need. It does not provide the payroll tax revenues to strengthen Social Security. This is Obama’s economic policy!

North Korea has exploded a nuclear device; Iran will soon have nuclear bombs. This is Obama’s foreign policy!

Candler A. Willis

Zirconia

It’s no big deal

To the editor: So, the National Park Service is going to experience spending cuts right along with the Carl Sandburg home, a national historical site. Big numbers included in the recent article: $758,000 to be “axed” from a budget of $15.6 million. And the Carl Sandburg home is going to “lose” $62,000 from a budget of $1.2 million. Well, it’s about time.

These “cuts” amount to approximately 0.05 percent of these budgets. Unbelievable that something as small as this warrants bold headlines in the paper.

Is the media again slinging scare tactics for the Obama administration?

Let’s look at this another way. These are savings to the taxpayers.

So someone has to drive 80 miles from one visitors center to another, or there might be fewer tours at CSH. Big deal. I’d like to see the cuts being 5 percent.

One can still drive along the parkway and enjoy the scenery for free, and folks can still take their hikes up Big Glassy. Maybe there need to be reductions in salaries in the National Park Service, and don’t forget cutting salaries to Congress.

Glenn Richardson

Hendersonville

Focus on finances

To the editor: Having not so long ago moved into a retirement home here from out of state, I am heartened that the N.C. Legislature has few problems to address more important than exposed nipples. Leave the nipples alone and solve the state’s financial woes.

Edwin F. Holcombe

Hendersonville

Pipeline’s impact

To the editor: An article in the Times-News on Feb. 20 quoted the president of the company planning on building a pipeline from western Canada to Texas as saying the project would have no measurable effect on global warming.

Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president for energy and pipelines, states in his stunning conclusion that “Simple math tells us, therefore, that the oil sands represent one tenth of one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Even if production from the oil sands were to double, the contribution from the oil sands would be immaterial ... .”

If the oil sands represent one tenth of one percent, then they contribute one thousandth of the problem. A thousand such “immaterial” contributions would make up the entire global greenhouse gas emissions on Earth today. If the same thousand “immaterial” contributors doubled their production of greenhouse gas emissions, assuring us all that what they’re doing would have such a small impact as to not really matter, we would have a doubling of global greenhouse gas emissions on the planet — far from immaterial.

Mr. Pourbaix’s math is indeed simple, but not as simple, or erroneous, as his conclusions. Where, on this increasingly warming planet, did he go to school?

<p>To the editor: Economic growth is anemic and totally inadequate to carry the debt load the administration has imposed. It does not provide the jobs that people need. It does not provide the payroll tax revenues to strengthen Social Security. This is Obama’s economic policy!</p><p>North Korea has exploded a nuclear device; Iran will soon have nuclear bombs. This is Obama’s foreign policy!</p><p><em>Candler A. Willis</em></p><p><em>Zirconia</em></p><h3>It’s no big deal</h3>
<p>To the editor: So, the National Park Service is going to experience spending cuts right along with the Carl Sandburg home, a national historical site. Big numbers included in the recent article: $758,000 to be axed from a budget of $15.6 million. And the Carl Sandburg home is going to lose $62,000 from a budget of $1.2 million. Well, it’s about time.</p><p>These cuts amount to approximately 0.05 percent of these budgets. Unbelievable that something as small as this warrants bold headlines in the paper.</p><p>Is the media again slinging scare tactics for the Obama administration?</p><p>Let’s look at this another way. These are savings to the taxpayers.</p><p>So someone has to drive 80 miles from one visitors center to another, or there might be fewer tours at CSH. Big deal. I’d like to see the cuts being 5 percent.</p><p>One can still drive along the parkway and enjoy the scenery for free, and folks can still take their hikes up Big Glassy. Maybe there need to be reductions in salaries in the National Park Service, and don’t forget cutting salaries to Congress.</p><p><em>Glenn Richardson</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p><h3>Focus on finances</h3>
<p>To the editor: Having not so long ago moved into a retirement home here from out of state, I am heartened that the N.C. Legislature has few problems to address more important than exposed nipples. Leave the nipples alone and solve the state’s financial woes.</p><p><em>Edwin F. Holcombe</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p><h3>Pipeline’s impact</h3>
<p>To the editor: An article in the Times-News on Feb. 20 quoted the president of the company planning on building a pipeline from western Canada to Texas as saying the project would have no measurable effect on global warming.</p><p>Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president for energy and pipelines, states in his stunning conclusion that Simple math tells us, therefore, that the oil sands represent one tenth of one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Even if production from the oil sands were to double, the contribution from the oil sands would be immaterial ... .</p><p>If the oil sands represent one tenth of one percent, then they contribute one thousandth of the problem. A thousand such immaterial contributions would make up the entire global greenhouse gas emissions on Earth today. If the same thousand immaterial contributors doubled their production of greenhouse gas emissions, assuring us all that what they’re doing would have such a small impact as to not really matter, we would have a doubling of global greenhouse gas emissions on the planet  far from immaterial.</p><p>Mr. Pourbaix’s math is indeed simple, but not as simple, or erroneous, as his conclusions. Where, on this increasingly warming planet, did he go to school?</p><p><em>Bruce Benson</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p>